http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IT WAS ANOTHER tumultuous political week, contradicting once again all
the left-wing, and left-behind, pundits and elected officials who claim
the 2000 presidential race is “boring.” Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, a
steadfast supporter of Al Gore (now that’s an unholy marriage of
convenience) pooh-poohed the sudden rise of Bill Bradley, saying on CBS’
Face the Nation that the Vice President was in solid shape because
“[t]he campaign hasn’t really begun yet.” Gephardt really is from Pluto:
not only is he betting on the wrong horse, but his faceoff with hapless
Speaker of the House Denny Hastert over the $792 billion tax cut Bill
Clinton vetoed was so politically transparent, and misleading, that I
can only hope The Weekly Standard soon dedicates an entire issue to
detailing what a deceitful man he really is.

The most fascinating item I found in reading newspapers was a “minor
memo” on the front page of The Wall Street Journal last Friday. Ronald
Shafer tells how Clinton and Gore recently used a 17-car motorcade to
make the one-block trip from the White House to the Hay-Adams hotel.

That’s the Dogpatch in Clinton for you: Why walk, with Secret Service
agents in tow, when you can take an ostentatious one-minute limo ride, a
la faux-populist Michael Moore? Gore, a wealthy creature of Washington,
takes such excess as second nature, but it certainly doesn’t square with
his Jesse Jackson cadences when he’s in a black church speaking
passionately (for Gore) about the plight of the working and
poverty-stricken classes, held hostage to those arrogant Republicans
with their “risky tax scheme,” most of whom grew up in less opulent
surroundings than the Vice President.

It reminds me of the ’92 campaign when Clinton, lying and pandering his
way to the Democratic nomination, stayed at the Waldorf in New York, all
the while talking about the corruption of money in politics. Meanwhile,
Jerry Brown slept on the couches of friends and used a 1-800 number to
solicit small donations to his budget-conscious, yet enormously
influential, campaign. When history is written about the political
events of this past generation, Brown will be revered as an eccentric
visionary, while Clinton, even though he was president for eight sordid
years, will be sullied. That’s the punishment he deserves and
fortunately he’ll be still be alive to read it.

I dislike Sen. John McCain intensely, but can you imagine him ordering
up a 17-car motorcade for a one-street trip? I can’t. Same goes for
Bradley, who’d just be disgusted by the waste of it all; likewise,
George W. Bush would scoff at the very notion and, like the other two,
do what almost any other American would: walk. On the other hand,
protectionist/bigot Pat Buchanan would revel in the pomposity of it all
and probably expand the entourage to include 20 vehicles. It’s an Outer
Limits world in Washington and I’m just thankful I don’t live there and
get sucked into that sick culture. Cheers to Chris Caldwell and Tucker
Carlson for retaining a certain amount of civility.

Dubyah

I was disappointed that Gov. Bush urged Buchanan to remain in the
Republican Party. It was an unnecessary act of appeasement, to use the
word of the week, and didn’t demonstrate the leadership he’s capable of.

Even though Bush hasn’t promised Buchanan even a janitor’s job in the
White House, in the absence of denouncing this kook, he could’ve
remained silent. On the other hand, it was probably smart politics. Let
McCain (who said, “I don’t believe Pat Buchanan is a part of the
Republican Party when he uses statements and beliefs that we should not
have fought against Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan”), Steve Forbes
and Elizabeth Dole bash away; they’ve got nothing to lose in their
desperate quests for the GOP nomination. Buchanan called Bush’s remarks
“gracious” and if that helps in the general election, I suppose it’s a
strategy I can reluctantly live with.

The most vivid fireworks on the Buchanan front came from the Clinton
News Network (CNN) last Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday’s “Inside
Politics,” Corespondent Bruce Morton delivered a scathing editorial
about Buchanan’s book A Republic, Not An Empire, quoting the
now-infamous passages that suggest the United States, along with France
and Britain, should’ve ceded Poland to Hitler.

Morton: “We learn that he is a 1930s anti-Roosevelt isolationist who
would have stood aside and hoped Nazi Germany and communist Russia would
fight.” He then reads a Buchanan excerpt: “Hitler saw the world divided
into four spheres: Great Britain holding its empire; Japan dominant in
East Asia; Germany, master of Europe; and America, mistress of the
Western hemisphere.”

Morton continues: “That would apparently have been fine with Buchanan,
never mind Germany’s Jews, though he notes elsewhere that the Dachau
concentration camp began receiving prisoners as early as 1933. Jewish
influence on U.S. policy worries Buchanan... Nowadays, it’s immigration
Buchanan worries about... You can argue over whether that’s racist,
whether the stuff about Jews is anti-Semitic. What voters—perhaps in the
Republican Party, perhaps in the Reform Party—must decide is, Does this
man speak for us.”

The following day, Buchanan appeared on “Inside Politics” and engaged in
the following exchange with anchor Judy Woodruff (married to The Wall
Street Journal’s Al Hunt, just to give a hint of her bias).

McCain

After saying he wasn’t interested in an apology from McCain, since
“these apologies are mostly synthetic and false,” Buchanan turned up the
volume.

Buchanan: “But let me say, my problem is more with CNN, Judy. I thought
that was a piece of political hack work by Bruce Morton, yesterday. A
dishonest journalist that really was trying to win him the Peter Arnett
Trophy.”

Woodruff: “Well, I think that’s an unfair statement, because...”
Buchanan: “I know you do, and I appreciate your indignation on his
behalf. I wish there were more on mine. But let me say this: If I were
really—you know, basically indifferent to the suffering of the European
Jews and when the Holocaust started, and I’m that kind of person,
really, CNN should never have hired me, and should not have brought me
back after three leaves of absence. And if I am not that kind of person,
why would CNN allow something like that to go on the air when they know
me very, very well. They know Pat Buchanan is not a hater, or a bigot.
He’s done 3,000 shows on Crossfire. I don’t think ever once have I had
to apologize for something I said on the show.”

Score one for Buchanan; CNN has always been interested in ratings over
solid reporting and commentary.

Woodruff: “But to suggest that Bruce Morton is a dishonest journalist, I
can’t let that lie there... I can assure you, I was not part of
yesterday’s program. But whether I was here or I wasn’t, Pat Buchanan, I
can assure you that CNN’s interest is in getting the news on the air.
There is no desire to go after, to attack any one candidate or any
other...”

Then, Buchanan jostled with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol. The
Standard’s editor said on Tuesday’s Hardball: “Pat Buchanan, I think, is
leaving the Republican Party. It is a good thing for the Republican
Party. It’s a good thing for conservatives. And I say this as a
conservative Republican. I’ve worked for Bill Bennett, I worked for Dan
Quayle. I’ve been on the right wing of every administration I’ve been
in, I think. I’m pro-life. It is good for conservatives to lose Pat
Buchanan. He is not an authentic American conservative... He is willing
to play with people who were appeasers of Hitler... He hates Winston
Churchill. He does not want America to be strong in the world... I think
Pat’s argument is ridiculous. If you read [his] book carefully, it’s not
good history. He cites various, sort of, revisionist, flaky historians
in a somewhat haphazard way.”

Kristol

Buchanan responded to Kristol’s criticisms in both the Standard and on
tv shows, by saying that the editor and GOP strategist is a “teeny
character,” spouting off with “cheap little shots” with his “dinky
magazine,” and who doesn’t have his history in the Goldwater movement.
Kristol told Howard Kurtz on Saturday’s Reliable Sources, “No, Pat can
dish it out, but I guess he can’t take it.”

Even P.T. Sharpton got in his digs, commenting to the Times’ Gail
Collins about the fraud that’s taking place in the Reform Party right
now, where left-wing extremist Lenora Fulani is shacking up with
Buchanan. Sharpton said about Fulani, who withdrew her support from the
carnival barker because he was too “mainstream”: “To go from Al Sharpton
to Pat Buchanan would make a dead person suspicious.”

It’s telling that one of Buchanan’s few remaining supporters is the New
York Post’s brain-dead Steve Dunleavy, who, on Sept. 20, pleaded with
the insurgent not to bolt from the GOP. He wrote, after dismissing other
third-party candidates, and presumably knocking back several pints: “But
not Pat. He is too valuable to a Republican Party which has forgotten
that Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan were the real reform leaders.”
My deadline approaches rapidly this Monday afternoon, so just a few more
comments. When will mainstream journalists stop referring to Donald
Trump as “The Donald”? It’s an infuriating tic that should be axed by
editors, although they probably take lunch with Trump and so don’t want
to give up the charade.

The New York Post’s “On the Newsstand” for Sept. 27 gives high marks to
Newsweek for having “the guts to call Pat Buchanan a ‘crackpot’ in a
headline.” At this point, that’s about as “gutsy” as predicting that
Gov. Bush will win the GOP presidential nomination. Once again: Rupert,
you’re not minding the store. Get rid of John Podhoretz. Now!
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg, to his credit, was one of the first pundits to
trash Buchanan, but in his Sept. 16 posting he devoted most of his anger
to the candidate’s obvious anti-Semitism, when there’s so much more to
criticize. He writes: “If dabbling in Holocaust denial doesn’t convict
Buchanan of anti-Semitism on its own, it makes a powerful case in
combination with the many things he has said and written pointing to
Jews as a surreptitious, sinister force in American life.” Weisberg says
that Buchanan will attack “New York bankers” like Goldman Sachs, but
never Bear Stearns or Salomon Smith Barney. Uh, Jake, Bear Stearns, like
most financial firms, is controlled by Jews; that’s just a fact.

Quayle

Weisberg also complains that Buchanan uses code words like “media
elites” to say that the communications and entertainment industries are
populated by a disproportionate number of Jews. That’s also a fact. And
frankly, I don’t give a hoot. But it seems that Weisberg is getting a
little touchy here, to the exclusion of Buchanan’s other myriad
prejudices and 18th-century political views.

Dan Quayle, an excellent candidate for president, unfairly tarred by a
malevolent press, has dropped out of the GOP race. He’s finally
convinced that Gov. Bush will be the nominee, saying, according to an
adviser to his campaign, “At some point, your head takes over your
heart.” There’s a bit of bad blood between Bush and Quayle, but a fast
endorsement by the latter would go a long way toward securing him a key
position in the Bush administration.

Martin Peretz, the sad-sack owner of The New Republic, is not at all
pleased that his former pupil Al Gore is stumbling so badly. In a
“Washington Diarist” column in the Oct. 11 issue, Peretz takes the
opportunity to viciously eviscerate Bill Bradley. Fine by me, I think
both Gore and Bradley are sanctimonious nobodies, but Peretz’s column no
doubt caused internal strife at his magazine. He writes: “The New York
Times’ Richard L. Berke reports that many important Republican
operatives think Bradley would make a stronger candidate against Bush
than Gore would. Thanks for the free advice, gentlemen. You may be able
to gull Berke into believing that this is neutral analysis. But if I
were a GOP state chairman or a Republican senator, I’d be saying exactly
the same thing. They want the Democrats to select a loser. So they
disparage Gore to strengthen Bradley.”

This is hogwash. The Bush campaign would far prefer Gore as a challenger
because of his ties to Clinton. Bradley, on the other hand, takes away
some of Bush’s luster as a “new face,” and a Washington outsider who’ll
help remove the stench from the past seven years.

Peretz concludes with this dopey remark: “One more consideration:
Bradley is not boring; he is deadly boring. Compared to Bradley, in
fact, cerebral Al Gore is Ricky Martin.”

Bradley

Finally, Time’s cover story this week on Bradley, “The Man Who Could
Beat Gore,” was a mushy, conventional-wisdom piece that needn’t have
wasted so much space. Reporter Eric Pooley unearthed nothing new about
his subject, instead relying on the cliches that we’ve read countless
times. This one’s especially lazy: “Bradley is confident, watchful; when
he left the Senate in 1996, he spent two years traveling the country,
talking and listening to people, looking inside himself. And when he
decided that he was ready and that those who said the nomination
belonged to Gore were wrong, he committed himself to the race with a
shrewd, methodical relentlessness that harks back to his Scotch-Irish
forebears...”

In addition, Pooley, in his article, which could’ve been written by
Bradley himself—a Sidney Blumenthal example of unctuous
hagiography—talks about the “chattering classes” who are finally
realizing that the former senator has a real shot at the nomination.
“And,” Pooley writes, “surely it doesn’t hurt that he had that wicked
jump shot way back when.”

I’m done. I just can’t stand to write about any more “listening tours”
and “chattering classes.” Next week, I promise I’ll finally get to John
McCain, the sleazeball who amazingly hasn’t yet been discredited by the
Beltway
media.

JWR contributor "Mugger" -- aka Russ Smith -- is the editor-in-chief and publisher of New York Press. Send your comments to him by clicking here.